Skip to main content

About this Show

Capitol Hill Hearings





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 17 (141 MHz)






Faa 21, United States 4, Us 4, U.s. 2, Elizabeth Monroe 2, America 2, Francis Collins 1, Minnesota 1, Toink 1, Lawing 1, Rick Snyder 1, Frank 1, Mr. Miller 1, Durbine 1, Frank Has 1, Houston 1, Blumenthal 1, Louisa Catherine Adams 1, Mexico 1, Org Firstladies 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Capitol Hill Hearings    News/Business.  

    March 21, 2013
    6:00 - 7:00am EDT  

>> that is an excellent question. the responsibility of the faa to ensure everything that flies in the air space is safe. the only way to ensure the safety is to test them. these test sites are ones that already exist in the new mexico state and new ones coming forward will have the capability to test to make sure any unmanned air system will have the ability to operate safely into the national airspace. they will certify the platform, operator, in many cases operational environment. fairly confident that that will lead to improvements, standards that need to be created. >> most definitely. there are 50 different entries that have been petitioned from 37 different states that are involved. in the involved reauthorization bill that you
quoted are being funded by the states themselves from certification from the faa. in the future you may see every state could have their own test site in error -- in order to be able to ensure the technology being deployed is in fact say. some proponents of drones, drowned technology have argued current safeguards provided -- drone technology have argued current safeguards provided a sufficient level of technology. we have on the books, walls we are ready have on the books related to other technologies that can overlap and include this type of technology. remedies that provide similar of it -- civil remedies for violations of the loss. some have suggested the legal protection should apply leg ally to drones.
sufficientey may be to alleviate problems or concerns. in your view, is this approach correct and what are the main differences between manned and unmanned aircraft as it relates to the protection of americans for privacy concerns and rights under the fourth amendment? >> think you for the question. we do not believe there are federal statutes that would provide surveillance in the united states. the privacy laws that exist are very targeted. the approach the united states has taken to privacy do not encompass the type of surveillance the drones are able to conduct. advocating forre additional legislation. the primary difference will be, and i think this has been brought up, that drones are going to be able to conduct much more surveillance. they are cheaper to fly, cheaper to buy and maintain.
therefore there able to conduct an incredible amount more surveillance and suggest individuals to the surveillance. they are built and designed to carry some of the most surveillance technology on the market today. this further puts individuals at risk. >> i assume your analysis has to do with the stealth factor, the size and the way many of them are operated they do not make as much noise, harder to see, and harder to hear, and can move in and out in that -- like a seat thief infe -- like a the night. in the testimony you mentioned several concerns you have about drones. even with current advancements, and the cost of the technology places some real significant practical limitations on the use of drums. -- drones.
as justice scalia described, some of them are neither constitutional but are practical but as technology advances, those limitations cease to act as a constraint on the privacy concerns we're discussing here. the technology related to drones has developed much in the past decade and will continue to a dance and make those same concerns even more significant. one of my concerns relates to the coming years and the likelihood that those limitations will precede, along with the technological advances. in other words, as the technological advances make drone's more effective and cost- effective, these concerns can become more significant. how should the potential for development of the technology in future uses of the system affect our analysis here when we are examining the privacy
implications of the technology? >> i think the best thing to do because of the incredible advancement and where it will be, recently rick snyder said it is commonplace. we need legislation that will be technology-neutral, and that means it will not become quickly outdated as technology increases. if we look at the electronics communications privacy act, in the process of being updated now, many years later, it was able to hold up through many advances in technology and only recently needs to be updated because of not being able to foresee the future of the internet at that time. i think it is important for all technology and privacy legislation to be as neutral as possible. >> thank you. the technology are referenced in my opening statement, the theft
people'soogle of passwords -- if someone broke into your house and did that, you would want them arrested. it was an egregious breach of people's privacy. i am going to yield now to the senator. i have to go back to the floor because of budget matters, but senator frank has offered to take a double, and i appreciate that. >> think you very much. much.nk you very i do of the shipping in minnesota and those things that use the public use here. i am concerned as i hear about the potential for individual citizens for commercialization of the drone use and some of the limits that were brought up, even in this surveillance piece
of this as well. my first question was a follow- up where she was asking about the safety issues in the air space. i understand all the 400 feet and limitations, but if you started getting these in the hands of people that did not know how to run them or something wrong, what would happen? what would happen if one of them came up against a small aircraft? would it matter if you got a bigger drone? >> when you look at the national are rules ande regulations the faa says you cannot fly anything within a certain distance of that air space. typeu do that within any of machine, you are violating the law. there is this a concern that you would be concerned about. >> i understand, but what would
happen if they hit a small plane? it there was a collision, there could be damaged. >> the second piece of information is back to you. just this commercialization, and i know someone ask you about this earlier, but what are the limits if someone wanted to privately fly one? there are state statutes in some states. laws that saysy if you violate people's reasonable expectation of privacy, although you obviously have to do it repeatedly, someone can sue you in civil court. oute was a case that came in favor of the plaintiff. >> so someone could buy one
right now? get a certification from the faa? >> not really. and you could buy something like a parrot ar for $300. it is a vehicle you comply by your ipad. more than likely you will not get sued over that in all likelihood. the faa does bay and the commercial use of drones today but that is set to be relaxed in 2015. then we will have an economic incentive. i think this will be a wonderful thing. i think this technology is deeply transformative. i sent they are basically applying smart phone. went to we are never get there unless we place limits
and domesticate this problem of privacy because of our reaction from a we are not going to avail ourselves to technology. like card last names. i can relate to you. youwould free -- how would relate to that? >> right now we're seeing already without commercial operators being able to legally operate drones, rising every week or month i hear a story of the faa trying to shut down a commercial operator who is trying to take advantage of the technology before they are able to. i'd think there will be incredible commercial uses. google has already started using them. in my opening statement this creates new challenges as well. according to congressional
research service, some drones have facial recognition technology and radar that can see through walls. and it is use through layers of clothing. what are the more advanced features of domestic drones, and how do you see this being developed? the technology being used on unmanned systems is no different than the technology used today by a man the systems. what it allows you to do in the concerns we are having these sorts of things that a very low cost and with a larger volume is the same things that cause the economic benefits with what we're seeing of the utilization. there is a very huge upside to this technology. you cannot stop
people from misusing any technology. whether it is spatial imaging or the permiting or whatever. the lots tell you if you violate the laws, you should be punished. that may be the issue we should be discussing, the technology that exists today, not the delivery system. >> our laws need to be sophisticated as the people that are potentially breaking them. i think that is what we are headed to. thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you to all the witnesses for coming in testifying today. it seems to me drones are a technological tool that can be used productively or can be abused. when we think about the conduct overseas, in particular counter
terrorism, i think drones have proven and effective tool in certain circumstances and have enabled us to deal with terrorists without placing servicemen and women directly in harm's way. it seems to mee over seas are calm that needs to be consistent with the laws of war. domestically in the united states our conduct needs to be consistent with the constitution. how that applies to a topic of another day, use of legal force, is not necessarily an easy question. i would like to begin, mr. miller, with a question for you which is art there limitations on the uses of drones that your members would support as common
sense protections of the privacy of american citizens? >> the easy answer is yes. we already look to case law. one of the things we position the program on is we have not really invented a new ability to collect information. the camera has done that for us. it has done not for us for decades and in the past. there is case law out there that speaks to the direction for which we take when we consider putting a camera in the air. fact that it applies to the system or a police helicopter you see has not change the way we think about it or view it. would youritation members support? >> i think the limitations are
the ones we currently have identified through the study of case law that has occurred until this time. >> it seems to me there should be an important distinction probable cause, substantial evidence to be guilty of a crime. law enforcement has always had extensive tools for operating in that environment. the collection of the data concerning ordinary citizens. you overlay the availability of drones with the proliferation such as stationary cameras -- my hometown of houston recently voted to take down red light cameras. havenk a great many of us very deep concerns about the
government collecting .nformation on the citizenry with the ease and availability of drones i think there is a real concern the day-to-day conduct of american citizens going about their business might be monitored, catalog and recorded by the federal government. i would have very deep concerns about that. question, do you share those concerns? if so, what reasonable limitations should be considered to protect the privacy rights of all americans? >> i think any time when you come up with a new surveillance technology will have instances where the technology catches bad actors doing bad things. those few instances are at the expense of constant surveillance of all citizens as they go about
their daily life is not consistent with the daily protection of the -- daily constitutional protections and what our country was built upon. i think we need to prevent police patrols or driving up and down the street collecting all sorts of information about theviduals supplemented by facial recognition technology. i think we need to enforce a requirement for drones and circumstances where they are collecting criminal evidence. i think we need to address commercial and individual uses of drones. the core ofthat is the issue we have here today. the conversation should be focused on what is the government's right to collect, use, store, disseminate share information. a code ofwe put out
youuct to say this is how use them to make sure you get the benefit and do not violate the privacy of an individual. the international association of chiefs of police put up their guidelines -- put out their guidelines for how to use the technology. there is a tremendous opportunity for the technology to be used. it is not a different type of surveillance. the technology is the same technology that exists today. it is how it is being used. i understand the benefits you get from having a low-cost, reliable capability that can provide you with the ability to move a mission package payload from one point to another. the human being involved in that is one that is responsible. just because there's not a pilot in the plane, the individual operating that is still responsible.
a person uses it in an incorrect way, that person should be held accountable. >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman. person you are the dimensions the fourth amendment only applies to state actors. at least there are protections against unreasonable government intrusions. when non- is around state actors can utilize this technology and after 2015 apparently the sky is the limit. do you think congress has the power to prohibit private citizens and corporations from with camerases that are capable of storing
images. what is the limit to what congress can do to provide limitations on non-state actors and their use of drums? >> yes, i think congress can provide those limits. again, the first amendment draws a distinction between stopping from someone in general prohibition. the government may say you are not allowed to do xyz in order to gather information, and that can apply the same way to the press. as a consequence, yes, they probably can. that said, there would not be able to make content-based decisions about who can make drums and who cannot. equalwill apply the measure to individuals. does of thatess capability. >> it is coming up with what
constitutes the brevet -- basic privacy limitations. it will not be so easy to come up with that kind of language. with the technology changing as fast as we can possibly say you're talking about this, i was -- sorry, you know what i am talking about. you said we should be technology-neutral. what would you consider a technology-neutral way to set limits on the private use of drums? >> i think the best way is to look at the surveillance that drones can conduct. with the data minimization in making sure that no individual
has persisted databases of collection of information on them. one of the great places we have the fair information practices that have been incorporated in the guidelines to look for what protections need to be in place. perhaps the other panel members could weigh in on this, too. i would think it would be pretty difficult to enforce these kinds of statutes for law enforcement. for example if we establish or visual sighting parameters of who -- who was supposed to enforce whether these are being met? >> some of the things we have asked for includes audits that would repeal one possible
violations are occurring. individuals that have observed drones in being operated in a way they're not supposed to be can bring lawsuits against operator. i want to note at least the federal statute would be enforceable. ,he chief of police guidelines the guidelines have one line in them about privacy. the chief of police guidelines are a little more protective. neither of those are enforceable provisions. couple of they're a dangers of legislating at the federal level, and maybe want -- one approach to think about is to allow the states to come up with individual ways of doing things and see whether the
common-law courts can adapt to changing circumstances. i am not sure i come down one way or another. i think some safeguards are absolutely necessary, because otherwise i think americans will reject the technology, which could be very beneficial. >> thank you. my time is up. senator blumenthal. >> thank you. let me pursue the question that arises from your last response, if i may, and asked you whether in fact if there is legislation, should it be at the federal level. dealing with federal scope issues that relate to air safety. the federal aviation has a mandate to comply with legislation by 2015 because of the prospect of 30,000 or more of these uav's, drones, flying
around in the air space. isn't this quintessentially an issue for regulation, if there's going to the legislation? is i justrt answer did not know. i agree with respect to safety that they have to have its own expertise and its own in a great approach. i also support the idea of asking the federal aviation administration to consider privacy to a pre requisite for issuing licenses. i think that makes a lot of sense. i think there is benefit to their laboratory for ideas. some states and in -- say anything goes here. maybe we will learn from that experience. that is all i am trying to say. >> i agree states are sometimes
much better equipped and able to deal with these kinds of questions, and i think of a certain level very likely states can safeguard privacy concerns, established standards better -- thatven or disproved are then proven or disproved. you know of any challenges that are ongoing now, and any of the members of the panel can respond. challenges either to private practices or law enforcement orion pending in the courts planned. one at right now. customs and border protection has an ongoing program with a allows state and local law enforcement other agencies to borrow the predator drones and
use them to conduct surveillance that is not related to the customs and border patrol mission. we are submitting today a petition for them to suspend this practice. >> you are submitting it today? this practice has already been used to conduct surveillance of the suspected and alleged cattle thief who was holed up on his property. they collected information about him and used that information to arrest him. the first use of a drum to an arrest for a u.s. citizen. >> the courts could be relied on to protect privacy in the law enforcement setting, except almost certainly those cases would arise in the context of efforts to exclude evidence in a criminal prosecution, rather than surveillance or monitoring or other potentially invasive
activities that might not result in the prosecution were a motion to exclude evidence word -- would be filed. >> exactly. we need the protection in advance of getting to that stage of the prosecution. when a challenge has already been brought to exclude evidence or surveillance issues, that means rights have already been violated. we think legislative efforts could put protections in place to prevent that from happening. we need toal view is update the law. clearly there is a need for everyone's interest to update the law, if only to provide the industry with the kind of bright lines and standards it needs and deserves to develop and apply this new technology. case that ishe sought by all sides for reliance as to the doctor and applicable as a 1986 case involving aerial
surveillance and an airplane were the united states supreme court upheld that practice by law-enforcement officials. new,we have an entirely, advancing, fast-changing potentially very invasive technology, but also with very positive uses as well it properly channeled. properly channel. i hope whether it is state courts where state law or federal courts and events of ,egislation or federal agencies the faa can somehow develop doctrines that update our current constitutional principles and safeguard privacy, which is very much in need of protection. not only of the collection of data, but also retention and distribution. for me, the issues are not only
what private companies or the government does to collect data, but also how they retain it, restore it, how they keep it and what they do with it. selling, exchanging, disseminating it. thank you. >> thank you. senator durbine. >. >> thank you. senator frank intakes of these issues with some frequency. when i first came to this committee some would noted the work privacy cannot be found in our constitution, but we have established that right, and i believe most of us believe it is a very important right that we cherish and want to protect. that is what this conversation is about. we're trying to take a document written many years ago and apply it to the modern world.
times we've had to struggle with that. the telephone was beyond anyone's imagination when the constitution was written. the internet and the trafficking that goes on through computers 20-30 years ago was unthinkable. you as chairman serving on the intelligence operations, the capacity we have for surveillance is dramatically improving. we are using it to our benefit to keep america safe. i am glad that we are. we may leave the world in that category and won this to continue to. when it comes to the emerging technology, the challenge has been discussed at length and the committee. the intersection of our personal privacy and the march of technology and what we need to do by way of law or policy or -- to really face it. cases that you noted
in your testimony really as you said were right on point. more was the supreme court is talking about gps detection of a suspect, thermal imaging, and the like. it appears to me there is more to be said when it comes to the question of our civil liberties, the prosecution of a crime and the use of the technology. what do you think of the major elements that are out there and result in the court decisions? >> there is tremendous amount of flexibility in the doctrine. what we're talking about is whether someone have the expectation that society is prepared to except is reasonable. we have a bunch of data points that say if someone flies over your house or company or whatever it happens to be with a helicopter or plane, that your
expectation of privacy is not reasonable. are we have cases suggested device to aa gps vehicle is technically at trespass and is a search under the constitution. agree there not directly on point. >> what about red light cameras? driving through an intersection that they end up taking a photograph and sending me a ticket. >> i think there are real dangers, but current constitutional doctrine will not capture that. i do not think that will be seen as violating the use of the fourth -- as violating the fourth amendment. that is potentially really the problem, which is that not just drones but surveillance technology has vastly outpaced
privacy law in my view it needs updating. in this spacegers is there are other things like traffic cameras. there are robots that climb the sign -- side of the building. i think it is more updating all of the privacy laws to reflect the technology. >> currently there are efforts underway in many communities to collect this information from the general conduct of the population. puc that as a parallel to the use of drums? as a parallel that to the use of drones? >> really the information is at hand. i am thinking about medical information. i think what we're doing today,
medical information and protections that protect my is a dataformation collection. the physician's assistant is only allowed to ask me these questions. i think in this conversation is very important to focus on the information. that is what my agency focuses on. the information that does not matter how we collective but what we do with it. you on thatallenge point. what about the right to be left alone, which is basic in america. talking lawe enforcement on one side, the private sector and another, it generally collecting information
about my life. >> i think you make a great point. but again, you bring that question that i just want to be left alone and you bring that back to it is not just law- enforcement, but what can we collect and what can we do with it? >> it is, what were you talked about. what is it? >> intrusion upon inclusion. >> how often has it been tested? to go it is an established court. -- >> it is an established tort. in '89 the law review article that has been influential and sets out the standards that have been adopted by other courts. it is not tested all the time. far has to be pretty reaches for it to trigger. that is because all of us are going around looking at each
other all the time so you want to have a threshold that is met. i do tend it to a jury that there really is a subjective element of harm to living in a society where you feel like you are under surveillance. in respect of of whether the data is collected or shared, feeling like you are living under drones could have that affected there are no safeguards in place. have anothercould plan here. -- have more time here. i want to mention after easter recess we're going to have a hearing in the subcommittee on the constitution about the use of drums and an international context. this will get into the whole question of the the full use of drones. lethal use of >> thank you.
i am chairman of the subcommittee on privacy technology and the law, and this sort of seems like it could have been -- this hearing could have been held on in the subcommittee. i am glad we did it as a whole committee. of why a perfect example i would characterize the constitution as a living constitution. the founders, i think it would be fair to say, probably did not anticipate this. they did not anticipate the phone. that is why at a certain point we had to decide whether phone taps were a violation of the fourth amendment. that really came down to
people's expectation of privacy. whathat is a big part of we're talking about here today. question that that this technology has unbelievable potential for law-enforcement, for legitimate law enforcement, for commercial applications -- certainly no one would argue with agricultural applications. for mining --rgue there are all kinds of unbelievable uses of this. but we do have these privacy concerns. i guess one of my questions is about who should oversee this? last year the-
government accountability office told us that no single federal agency has been statutory we designated with specific response able to regulate privacy matters but were referring to domestic drones. whether disagreement on the responsibility should be centralized in one body, and if so, which agency could do with the most effective way? in your opinion, what type of oversight would most effectively protect american civil liberties or privacy when it comes to this? andk in february of 2012,
position the faa to implement privacy regulations as part of their process to increase the use of drums in the united states. we believe the faa does have a critical role to play in this by mandating as a contingent on the licensing for drone operators to turn over information about what surveillance operations they're going to conduct and make that information publicly available and hold them accountable to sticking to that information. we think the faa is the primary regulating source. we also believe when other entities choose to operate they need to implement privacy regulations and surveillance limitations within their own use of drums. i am not quite sure who is overseeing that, but if there is
a single agency -- >> if we have a privacy concern or debate right now today, where we to go for that? you would not go to the faa. they have very limited, if any, expertise in that area of privacy. they are responsible for safety. anything that flies in the national airspace could only be done by virtue of granting of the faa saying it is done in a safe manner. that is the responsibility of the faa. that is a tremendous responsibility we take in high regard. i think we should let the faa do what they do best. when you talk about privacy, i am very fortunate to have lawyers to the left and right in front of me. those are the individuals, and
this is about privacy and in general. this is about the concern of gathering information, how it is used, the stored -- stored, disseminated and destroyed. that is done through a different framework. i look to this and say that is the essence of what we talk about. from statecomes peeping tom walls or constitution of the fourth amendment. >> you are talking about legislation. the legislation by necessity will appoint some agency to oversee this, i would think. who should that be, professor? >> there is economic scholarship percussing we are fairing relatively well with the multiple hats approach. also, i confess i am not
convinced federal budget station is the right move at this time. i will disagree about the faa. it is true historically the faa has looked at safety. i do not see any reason why the faa could not gain expertise around privacy. the faa bill -- did tell gao they have no expertise on privacy. >> that is true. only in february i received a letter saying we would like your input for how we should think about privacy in relation to testing centers. the truth of the matter is i think the faa is capable of gaining expertise and could be a good repository. >> ok, well, we will keep thinking about that. and there has been testimony and talk and questions or mention of data retention and dissemination
for. in otherthe issues words, is that a legislative responsibility, and would we be lawing about a privacy regarding uav or uas information? the privacy act does place limits among sharing in agencies and personal information with respect to governments -=- >> sorry to interrupt you, but we have smart phones now. someone referred to this as a flying start phone. we are having a little bit of regard tryingat
to put our finger on exactly how we regulate that. >> you are preaching to the converted on this issue. i think the ftc and the sec have struggled, not just with the network and device itself but the ups on top of it. it is a little bit of a mess. i am not sure we will fare any better around drones. i think perhaps it is a matter of triage. if we want to avail ourselves of the technology, then perhaps we should have at least something in place so americans feel more comfortable. i think the most obvious authority for that right now is the faa, although i believe we should be updating fourth amendment law in general to deal with contemporary surveillance technology. -- we areterested in now talking about technology that obviously will not talk about until now insert it would
not have been talking about 10 years ago. i am wondering about me and no technology. i think people would probably have been surprised before the hearing to see that is uas. that is what we're talking about in large part. small candies things get, and i think maybe the answer is until 1000 years from now and i bet there will be smaller. let's not goe their opulent of claro olague talking about here? terms of capability -- , but over. but you get to handle this. you are talking about
technology-neutral, but we are glad to have this -- this technology is just going to exponentially get more sophisticated and probably smaller, don't you think? i do believe so, and one of the major things we think about is predator drones, but we also have the ones you see on the desk in front of you, all the way down to drums the size of a being developed. technology is increasing as a the -- at an exponentially faster rate. we will see the capability increase. at one point you could have won the size of a battery andt has a operates four weeks and you could have a mosquito following you around?
take of their art are the images of this being developed by the national security agency and try to figure out what technology they can put on it. if an adolescent boy gets a hold of one of those. i did not know what that meant, by the way. [laughter] >> obviously we have had tremendous advance in technology over the past couple of years. we can continue to understand how that may go forward. a lot of that is due to different properties that have happened and things of that nature. the figure was used before the faa said there would be 30,000 flying in the air space. they have revised that to say 10,000. if you look at what the 10,000 might be, they will not be 10,000 drums following americans. if you look of the report, 80 percent of the application is going to be in farming,
precision agriculture. if you look at the public safety standpoint, which includes the law enforcement, firefighters and first responders, you will see that is a small quantity in the bigger picture. about oneentioned that was used in order to go over a ranchers facility, that federal andn the state entities to a federal request. they could have done it with a helicopter, but the technology was there and available and took a vintage of it. the point we're making is that we seem to be fixated on the what if of this thing happening, but it is the law of the privacy aspect of the information as being collected. that is what is critical. that is something we will have to keep dealing with with not
just this technology. 50 years ago we get this thing called the internet amount of the military and there were many hearings that were concerned about the privacy of the thing called the internet, that you would put your personal data on this and would be connected with the different entities without having different measures in place. 50 years later here we are. the internet is an integral part. it has made our lives better. are there misuses of the internet? i think we can all a tribute to that and understand that is a true statement, but we now have bullying laws that have come up that say because someone is misusing this technology, we have to put the right legislation or right parameters in place to make sure we get to take advantage of the upside and still make sure it is protected. questioningo one is the commercial potential and the public safety potential in the that can come from
this, but what -- but one of my duties is to look out for people's privacy. i see that the professor wanted to respond. >> thank you. i wanted to use the internet analogy to say that when we first deployed the commercial internet there were many people that were very nervous about using it. they did not ago on line to use -- to do transactions. we had to get security adequate enough so people felt comfortable using it. the same has to be said about drums. -- drones. >> safeguards will enhance the ability to use them. >> we concur. one last thing that came up, and then we will bring this to facial recognition has
been brought up. and when i started to talk about technological developments of these -- is their fear that this can be used in a way, and again, the fear is we have to address in order to mixture that we are able to use them properly that there will be the use of fish of recognition -- official recognition and not just in the hands of law enforcement but also private entities, and what possible misuse could this be put to? takeover -- >> i do not think there is as much beer but realistic expectations. we're already seeing reports
this is being developed. both commercial and public entities wishing to deploy it on drones. this comes with its own risk because it connects with an individual's life. you can keep a full picture of what happens to and in default -- individual throughout the day, not only in the public life but online transactions. you can connect the separate worlds. so this technology in the hands of commercial and government operators on drums increases the kind of surveillance picture for what drums will be able to do. thend could give everyone sense of essential having no privacy whatsoever in their lives, which is a tremendous loss. that weve to make sure can handle that through the law so that we can do the positive uses of this technology.
thank you all for your time and testimony. i think it has been a very productive hearing. it is clear to me it's a tremendous potential to create cost effectivee law enforcement operations and not be overstated, but also clear there are serious private and serious civil liberties concerns felt by all the members of this committee. we need to do more to prevent drone's from being used in an abusive manner that violates americans' privacy rights. , toink only if we do this follow up on the professor's, that will allow us to do the commercial applications, and only if we do that properly. this hearing has been an
important first step towards explaining these complex issues. i hope this panel will continue to work with me, all of you. and other members of this committee. thank you all again for your testimony. record will stay open for a week if anyone would like to submit additional statements or questions. this meeting is adjourned. thank you all. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> this morning the senate committee holds an oversight hearing on the homeland security department. officials testifying about spending at the agency. you can see live coverage starting at 10:00 eastern on c- span3.
next tuesday and wednesday, the supreme court hears arguments on the california ban on salmon-sex marriage federal defense of marriage act. we will bring you oral arguments both months -- both might starting at 8:00 eastern on c- span. very expensive carriage. elizabeth monroe dressed herself and her best and went to the prison where she was being held. madam lafayette and basically made her case of public one. authorities say the next day she was released. it was a couple of months. it pretty much kept her from going to the guillotine and its lead to her release. >> in some ways she has her own cause. she works with the washington female orphan asylum. that is somewhat modern having
this cause she was involved in. she does it work politics in her parlor in such a way as to help win the presidency for her husband and her own way. >> our conversation with historians on elizabeth monroe and louisa catherine adams is available on our website. of thean take a picture brain with mri or ct scans and see the whole thing, but there is enormous gap in between for how the circuits function in order to be able to move my hand or to look at you and process the information or to lay down the memory. we do not know how that works. with technology yet to be invented, so a lot of it will be technology development, what we aim to be able to do is record from thousands of brain cells at one time and be able to
therefore understand how these circuits work. days we do not have a scientific plan about milestones and timetables and costs, but it is getting to be a very exciting moment to put something together we could not have thought of. to go more with francis collins sunday night at 8:00 on assess band -- c-span q&a. atcoming up this morning, 9:00 eastern the u.s. house returns for work on the 2014 federal budget. the senate is in to work on the senate democrats' version of the 2014 budget. at 10:00, an oversight hearing on management at the homeland security department. in 45 minutes, tom price, budget committee vice chair discusses the debate over